|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Health |
|
2006 Upper Midwest Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook: 28 Feb: Pat N |
Current rating: 0 |
by pat n
Email: npat1 (nospam) juno.com (verified) |
04 Mar 2006
|
There hasn't been a decent winter in southern Minnesota and Wisconsin (the heart of the Upper Midwest) since 2001. Lake ice this year never got thick enough for
ice fishing. |
----
First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook - Upper Midwest - Pat N
28 Feb 2006
Pat N, Snow Hydrologist
Chanhassen MN
Links to articles:
Chicago Independent Media Center (IMC)
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/70714/index.php
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/70687/index.php
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (IMC):
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/112211/index.php
St. Louis Independent Media Center (IMC):
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
----------
First Annual Spring Snowmelt Flood Outlook - Upper Midwest - Pat N
28 Feb 2006
Pat N, Snow Hydrologist
Chanhassen MN
There hasn't been a decent winter in southern Minnesota and Wisconsin (the heart of the Upper Midwest) since 2001. Lake ice this year never got thick enough for
ice fishing.
The really unusual thing about the winter of 2006 was the absence of cold air.
Climate stations in eight states in the north central U.S. had record high
January average daily mean temperatures (100-110 year long periods of record to
current). Temperatures readings show that the far north had only a few below
zero F days, with most of February 2006 having mild days and nights by old time
Upper Midwest standards.
Snow depths and rankings in Minnesota are shown at the link below. On Feb 23rd
there was less than one inch of no snow cover in a band from southwest Minnesota
through the southern Twin Cities area into western Wisconsin. That area is near
or at the bottom of the snow depth ranking scale, as compared to historical
records of snow depth. Weather forecasts try to account for the bare ground
heating in their forecast adjustments from the modeled forecasts, especially on
days with lots of sun, but it still often gets warmer than what they issue. The
explanation given to the public is that it's getting so unusually warm because
of all the bare ground around which usually isn't snow free in late February.
There is rarely if ever any mention of climate change or global warming in the
explanations given to the public.
Link to MN climatology office snow map:
http://climate.umn.edu/doc/snowmap/snowmap_060223.htm
Also see: NOAA NWS National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center
(NOHRSC) at:
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/
NOHRSC has national operational responsibility for modeling and measuring snow depth and snow water equivalent. NOHRSC measures the water equivalent of a snowpack by making many flights above hundreds of established flight lines.
NOHRSC has been operational for the last 25 years. The water equivalent flight
line data is used to update snow hydrologic models which are used in NWS river
forecast center probabilistic spring flood outlooks, and river forecasting. Is
the data worth the cost in money and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?
What do you think is the public value of NOAA NWS NOHRSC National Snow Analysis?
Positive or negative?
* Highest of record (1897-2006) for January Avg. Daily Mean Temp.
--------------------
*Leech Lake Dam MN
*Milan 1 NW, MN
*Park Rapids 2 S MN
*Pine River Dam MN
*Dickinson ND
*Jamestown ND
*Langdon ND
*Forestburg SD
*Brodhead WI
*Lancaster WI
*Oconto WI
*Prairie Du Chein WI
*New London WI
*Solon Springs WI
*Spooner Exp Stn WI
*Stevens Point WI
*Ironwood MI
*Atlantic IA
*Windsor IL
*Lamar, MO
*Salem, MO
*David City NE
22 and counting
Temperature plots at:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
I'm monitoring the monthly temperature averages for the period of record in the
regions for each of the NWS Cooperative Climate Stations (rural, forested and
small town areas) and creating average monthly temperature plots because I think
someone needs to be doing this. This should be a government agency function but
I don't see any government agency people doing it. I think the gov people are
afraid to stick their neck out and show the public that the climate is indeed
warming. The proof is in the data, but the agencies that collect the data aren't
doing anything with it to show the public what's happening, nor are they
monitoring what's really going on.
In my opinion, the government agencies in the U.S. are failing badly in serving
the public good on climate change. They're not doing what they should be doing
in a time of global crisis... then they fired me for wanting to do what I believed was my job - to evaluate and take account of climate changes on the hydrology within the NC states of the U.S. for modeling and flood prediction purposes. It made no sense to me to use the same one set of calibrated
parameters for snowmelt, evaporation and transpiration in a basin where I knew
climate change was going on within the historical period of runoff calibration
for the river basin.
Snowmelt Flood Outlook:
It is too early in the season for specific numerical guidance that means
anything. River ice action will be below normal due to not much ice.
Links to additional information:
Chicago Independent Media Center (IMC)
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/70714/index.php
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/70687/index.php
Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (IMC):
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/112211/index.php
St. Louis Independent Media Center (IMC):
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/1334/index.php
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/patneuman2000/my_photos
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
Pat N, Snow Hydrologist
Chanhassen MN
--- |
This work is in the public domain |
